Objections to the Sabbath Answered.
Old things are passed away, and all things have become new. Answer. Those who raise this objection seldom know where to find the text on which it is founded; they know there is something of the kind somewhere in the New Testament, and that is sufficient. So they apply it to the Sabbath question and thus ease their consciences. But it has not the slightest reference to the Sabbath or the law, as will be seen by reading it. 2 Cor. 5:17. “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away, behold, all things are become new.” When do old things pass away and all things become new? At the death of Christ? At the change from the old dispensation to the new? Oh! no; but when a man comes into Christ and becomes a new creature. That is when this change occurs and what this text refers to. Another text similar to this is found in Rev. 21:5. “Behold, I make all things new.” What does this refer to? Read the connection. Verse 1. “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away,” &c. The passing away of the old earth and the introduction of the new earth is what John is discoursing about. All can see that in either of these passages it is simply a perversion of Scripture to wrest them from their connection and apply them to the Sabbath or the law, to which they have not the slightest reference. The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, but after faith came we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Gal. 3:24, 25. To the same effect the law is declared to be a yoke of bondage, from which Christ has made us free. Gal. 5:1. And other expressions in this book show that the law reached no farther than till the cross of Christ; hence the law has been abolished. Answer. The whole question, it seems to me, turns upon what law is under consideration in the book of Galatians. If what Paul here says of the law does apply to the decalogue, I should have to agree with our opponents that it has been abolished. But it seems evident to me that Paul is referring to the ceremonial law, and not to the law of ten commandments. For this I will give my reasons. Any particular expression in this book should be explained in accordance with the general subject of the letter. What object did Paul have in view in writing this letter to the Galatians? Does he find fault with them for keeping any one of the ten commandments? No such thing is mentioned in the whole letter. In the first chapter he appeals to them thus: “For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it; and profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.” Verses 13, 14. Here he mentions the traditions of the fathers, for which he had been very zealous. He then proceeds to say that the gospel which he preached was directly revealed to him by Christ himself, and not taught him by any man; no, not even by the apostles themselves. See verses 15–24. He then refers to a certain visit which he and Barnabas made at Jerusalem, at which time a council was held concerning this very question which was troubling the Galatians. Hence he refers to that council, and the action that was taken there, to convince these Galatians that they were regarding a law which was no longer to be kept by the disciples. Thus he says: “Then fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.” “But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.” Chap. 2:1, 2. Here he says that even Titus, a minister of the gospel, who went up to this council with him, was not compelled to be circumcised, though some, he says, tried to bring them into bondage, thus indicating that it is a law teaching circumcision which was troubling the Galatians. If the reader will turn to Acts 15, there he will find a lengthy account of this very visit of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem. “And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When, therefore, Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” Acts 15:1, 2. This language compared with Gal. 2:1–4 puts it beyond question that it is the same visit which is referred to in both places, and, as will be seen, the same subject is up in both places, viz., that of circumcision and the law of Moses. The reader is requested to turn back and read my answer to the objection founded on Acts 15; but I will recapitulate a few points here. Thus verse 5 says: “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” The question here is with regard to circumcision, as the reader cannot fail to see. This law, in verse 10, Peter calls a yoke which neither their fathers nor themselves were able to bear. The council wrote to the Gentiles that they need not keep the law, with the exception of the four points which they name as follows: “That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well.” Verse 29. The reader will see that all four of these things here mentioned are contained in the ceremonial law; hence it is also that law which is under consideration by Paul in his letter to the Galatians. Take another item in Paul’s argument in chapter 2:11–14. “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” How does this affect the question which Paul is arguing with the Galatians if the ten commandments are the law under consideration? It can have no bearing whatever upon it. But if it be the ceremonial law it is indeed very much to the point. Look at it. Peter, a Jew, and an apostle, comes down to Antioch, and freely eats with the Gentiles, which was a direct violation of the ceremonial law, forbidding such things. But when certain other Jews came down from Jerusalem, Peter withdrew from the Gentiles, and would not eat with them any more, and thus showed by his conduct that he regarded that ceremonial law as still in force and binding on Christians. Paul justly reproved him for this, thus: “If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” In other words, if Peter, a Jew, could disregard that law, how much more the Gentiles. What law had he violated? Any one of the ten commandments? No; he had simply done what the Gentiles did, and thus broken the ceremonial law of the Jews. In this he did perfectly right. This fact should have great weight in determining what law is under consideration here. Farther on, Paul asks them, “Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” Chap. 3:3. This has plain reference to the fleshly, or carnal, ordinances of the ceremonial law, of which Paul, in another place, says: “Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” Heb. 9:10. It could not refer to the decalogue, because those precepts are directly opposed to the flesh. To this he refers the Galatians again in chapter 6:12. “As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.” Here these works of the flesh are directly connected with circumcision, and those who kept that law did it to avoid the cross of Christ. Why? Because, by regarding all the ceremonies of the Jews, they would please them, and so escape persecution. That the law here spoken of is that which was written in the book of the law by Moses, and not on the tables of stone, is indicated by the following language: “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” Chap. 3:10. And verse 19, we think, is decisive as to what law is meant: “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” Paul asks, What is the object of the law? He answers, that it was added because of transgression. Transgression is the violation of the law. 1 John 3:4. “For where no law is, there is no transgression.” Rom. 4:15. Then it certainly follows that some law existed and was transgressed before this law was given; and further, it follows that this law would not have been given if the other law had not previously been transgressed. Mark this point well. Paul says directly that this law was added because of transgression. Then if the cause (transgression) had never taken place, this law would not have been added. Transgression is a violation of law. So a law existed and was transgressed before this law in Galatians was given. And it never would have been given if the first had not been violated. It seems to me that this point is so plain that none can fail to see it. Now look a moment at the facts. When God made man in Eden, he gave him everything for his life and comfort, with a free access to the tree of life. Gen. 2:8–17. Only one tree was man prohibited from eating. In the day he should eat of that he must die; but as long as he was obedient and did not transgress God’s command, he should live; but he transgressed the law of God. Thus we read: “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food,141and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” Gen. 3:6. By this act the woman transgressed three of the ten commandments. First, she desired, that is, coveted, the fruit which had been forbidden, and thus broke the tenth commandment, “Thou shalt not covet.” Secondly, she then took that which did not belong to her, and broke the eighth commandment, “Thou shalt not steal.” Thirdly, she obeyed Satan instead of God, and thus broke the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Comp. Rom. 6:16. Thus they transgressed the moral law of God and became condemned sinners. In order to save them, it became necessary for Christ to die; and to shadow forth this fact it became necessary to offer sacrifices of animals, &c. Then there must be priests to offer these, an altar upon which to sacrifice them, a temple, provisions for the support of the priests, &c. All these things required a law to regulate them; hence it became necessary now to add a second law, the ceremonial to the moral law. If the first had never been transgressed, then the second would never have been added. Hence Paul’s language is true, “Wherefore then serveth the law,” or what was the object of it? “It was added because of transgression.” Yes, and we have seen the reason why. How long? Till the seed (Christ) should come. How long were these sacrifices, the temple, the altar, the priests, &c., to last? Only till Christ, to whom they pointed, should come. Hence that law ended there of necessity. Of this law Paul further says: “It was ordained by angels in the hands of a Mediator,” precisely the way the law of Moses was given. But the decalogue was given by God himself, written by his own finger—not in a book, but on tables of stone. In this light it seems to me Paul’s language is very plain. “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ; but after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” Verses 24, 25. Chapter 5:1–3 furnishes further proof that it is not the ten-commandment law under consideration. “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” It will be seen that there is no reference here to the moral law, but to the law regarding circumcision. “If ye be circumcised,” says Paul, “Christ shall profit you nothing.” This he keeps constantly before their minds. Then he says, Whoever is circumcised is bound to keep the whole law, that is the whole of that law of which circumcision is a part; because if one part of that law is binding, of course it all is; hence they must proceed to offer sacrifices, &c. In the first place he calls it a yoke of bondage, the same term which Peter applies to the law of Moses. Acts 15:10. Can this apply to the ten commandments? Look them over. Is it a yoke of bondage to have no other gods, or to refrain from worshiping images, to speak God’s name with reverence, to honor our parents, to keep ourselves from murder, adultery, theft, lying or coveting? Here are nine of the ten. Who would stand up and say that these are a yoke of bondage to him? The man who would, would declare himself to be an unrighteous, unconverted, carnal man. There is only one commandment left which is the Sabbath commandment. Is it a yoke of bondage to rest on God’s holy day, to go to the house of God, to pray and sing and worship the Creator? To the carnal heart, no doubt this would be bondage, but God says that we shall “call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable.” Every reference shows that Paul in Galatians is considering, not the moral, but the ceremonial law. We freely admit that some of his statements are as true of the moral law as of the ceremonial, and perhaps some of them may be a general reference to all law, as where he says, “for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Chap. 2:16. And again, “But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident; for the just shall live by faith.” Gal. 3:11. In my answer to previous objections, I have answered that founded upon these texts where I showed that it was impossible for a sinner to be justified by even the strictest obedience to law, the moral law, or any other; hence it is true that a man cannot be justified by the works of the law, either the ceremonial or the moral. The blood of Christ alone can wash away our sins. But that does not abolish the moral law, nor give liberty for a man to sin. One or two more points in this book deserve a passing notice. Chap. 4:10, 11. Here, our opponents say, is a plain reference to the observance of the Sabbath. “Ye observe days, times,” &c. But I wonder if Sunday-keepers do not observe days, and times, as well as Sabbath-keepers? Why would not this be equally true of them? If it has any reference to the observance of the Sabbath day, then it would be wrong to keep any day, for that would be observing days, and times, according to this interpretation. But go back to the Old Testament a moment, and we find Moses giving a similar prohibition. Lev. 19:26. “Ye shall not eat anything with the blood, neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.” Again, Deut. 18:10, “There shall not be found among you . . . an observer of times, or an enchanter,” &c. Did this refer to the Sabbath? All know that it did not, from the very fact that at the same time they were strictly required to keep the Sabbath, and often other sacred days. We say that a fair interpretation of Paul’s language in Galatians will apply in the same manner, viz., to the superstitious observing of days, months, and times, which the heathen regarded. Another objection is founded on Paul’s allegory of the two women, in chapter 4:22–31. “For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman, was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory; for these are the two covenants, the one from Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” Because it is said that these two women represent the two covenants, and that one of these was from Mount Sinai, it is at once assumed that this is the ten commandments which were given at Mount Sinai. But there is no proof of this. It will be remembered that the ceremonial law was given from Mount Sinai as well as the ten commandments. When we go to Hebrews 8, we shall see that the old covenant is not the ten commandments. But it is sufficient now to show that the ten commandments are not what is represented by this bondwoman. What does Paul say that Agar represents? His language is direct and explicit: “For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to [or represents] Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.” A plainer statement cannot be made. The bondwoman, instead of representing the ten commandments, or the law, represents old Jerusalem with the unbelieving Jews, while the other represents not a new law, but the New Jerusalem, which is above, and is free. Paul concludes his argument on this point thus: “So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.” We are not children of this old, literal Jerusalem, which has been rejected by God, but of the new and heavenly Jerusalem above, which is free. How a person can make the mistake of applying these two women, one to the old law, and the other to the new, is more than I can see, when Paul so plainly says that they represent the one, old Jerusalem, which is in bondage with her children, and the other, Jerusalem above, which is free. All these points in this book might be made clearer by a more extended notice, but endeavoring to be brief, I have contented myself with simply stating facts enough to show that the position of our opponents is untenable.